Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

A question for Brian Sapient and Kelly about the ABC news debate

Posted on: October 8, 2007 - 4:05am

The Free Thinki...

Posts: 32

Joined: 2007-10-08

Offline

A question for Brian Sapient and Kelly about the ABC news debate

Why did you advocate the Steady State theory of the universe when it has been a dead theory in the scientific community for many years in light of the Big Bang theory. Since I'm not expecting you to remember everything you said in that debate (or the other members of this message board), your statements can be found here http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1 in the section "Is God a projection of your culture." Go to the 8:50 mark in which Kirk Cameron poses the question "If you're gonna keep going back to the beginning you've got to go back all the way and say something's got to be infinite...who made the universe?" After which you seem to agree that it is the universe "Why can't the universe be infinite?" According to the clearly more accepted scientific theory, the universe has not existed forever. Do you still hold these views of a Steady State universe, and if so, how do you justify them scientifically?

in the mean time more WAR and suffering tomarrow, I hope this dicussion becomes worth while to the ending of unnecessary sarrow. I was waiting for the world wide party to begin, then I realized I'll be long gone

I was hoping that the RRS would in general move away from "why can't the universe be infinite and eternal" and move towards the view I expressed in the above links.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

There are two ways the 'universe' could be eternal and/or infinite. First, when dealing with a theist who asks "What was before the big bang", you could say, "I don't know, but if you think it was god, why couldn't it have been the 'universe'?" In this instance, the word 'universe' should probably be replaced with 'the cosmos', which includes this observable universe and anything else that may exist but we don't or can't know about. This observable universe may be one of many in a larger infinite/eternal cosmos, for example. The point of this argument is not about what cosmologists currently theorize, but that God is not a good answer when a simpler answer is possible in God's place.

Second, you can say "The universe is eternal", because, as far as we know, spacetime began with the big bang, and so there has never been a *time* when the universe did not exist. This is hinging on the definition of 'eternal' as being about time. It would be wrong to say that the observable universe is infinite, however.

"If you're gonna keep going back to the beginning you've got to go back all the way and say something's got to be infinite...who made the universe?" After which you seem to agree that it is the universe "Why can't the universe be infinite?" According to the clearly more accepted scientific theory, the universe has not existed forever. Do you still hold these views of a steadystate universe, and if so, how do you justify them scientifically?

Asking a question "Why can't the Universe be infinite?" does not equal "We believe in a steady state Universe."

You are not the first strawman to bring this up. Anyway, back to the drawing board for you. Try again.

Then what exactly did you mean? This is not an attempt at defeating your position through an argument, it's a simple question. I want you to elaborate a little more on your belief as to whether or not the universe is infinite (I assume you mean in time, not space). Do you believe that before the Big Bang the universe merely existed as an immensely dense singularity stretching back forever? Please don't call this a strawman argument - that is simply a lazy way to dismiss what I have to say...it is a question, i'm not trying to prove anything, just get clarification.

And although you dismiss it, I do wholeheartedly agree with any atheist who believes that the Big Bang is valid scientific model for how the universe began. We theists aren't all Bible bashing morons who believe the universe is 6,000 years old.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

Fair enough...if you feel that attacking me instead of responding to my question is a logical way to go about this discussion, that's your choice. All I wanted to know were two simple yes/no answers - Do you believe in the Big Bang and if so, Does the singularity stretch back to infinity in time? Go ahead and mock me, call me a dumbass, I really don't care. I am used to being treated as if I'm somehow mentally deficient for believing in God by plenty of atheists before.

Allow me to clarify - yes time and space are related to each other, but that does not mean you cannot specify a dimension (i.e. I am refering to the box's length and width, not height). I am asking if the singularity's existence stretches back into infinity in time, not asking if the universe extends into infinity in all directions of space.

Fair enough...if you feel that attacking me instead of responding to my question is a logical way to go about this discussion, that's your choice. All I wanted to know were two simple yes/no answers - Do you believe in the Big Bang and if so, Does the singularity stretch back to infinity in time? Go ahead and mock me, call me a dumbass, I really don't care. I am used to being treated as if I'm somehow mentally deficient for believing in God by plenty of atheists before.

Theist:

I hope that you will not turn immediately from the forum based on this short thread. I would call your OP a little on the aggressive side. Particularly considering the length of time you have been a member and your manner of address. To give you a parallel, you would expect a similar reaction if you spoke this was to someone in their office on your first meeting, wouldn't you? This is Sapient's office.

I would ask you to hang out a while longer, discover to who you should direct scientific questions (I'll give you a hint, his initials are DG), and read some of the other materials already extant on the board.

Fair enough...I didn't want to come off as aggressive, but I understand where you are coming from. The wording of my post was definetely not correct in that regard. I am a little bit defensive on these matters because I'm usually the dissenting voice (most of the people at my school are atheists or non believers, the more religious people go to religious schools).

We can, however agree that religious fanatics of all kinds are a horrible problem for all of humanity. I believe in God and a scientific mindset/rational thought. I bet that I dislike these fanatics just as much as anyone here if not more than you guys, because they hurt my position by association.

I apologize for wording my question in a way that was definetely pushy and I hope that we can approach the debate in a more courteous manner in the future.

Fair enough...I didn't want to come off as aggressive, but I understand where you are coming from. The wording of my post was definetely not correct in that regard. I am a little bit defensive on these matters because I'm usually the dissenting voice (most of the people at my school are atheists or non believers, the more religious people go to religious schools).

We can, however agree that religious fanatics of all kinds are a horrible problem for all of humanity. I believe in God and a scientific mindset/rational thought. I bet that I dislike these fanatics just as much as anyone here if not more than you guys, because they hurt my position by association.

A very well stated post. I understand your defensive reaction. Many of us live in the photographic negative of your situation. As for the mixture of God and science, there are scholars in the field of science here, who will be most pleased to have dialogue with you. I would advise you to meander over to the science forums, however, and see what they have said before. Further, you will find some argumentation as to why moderate Christians actually assist the Fanatics.

Finally, I would invite you to go to the Introduction forum and give us as little info about you. You will find our intros there.

Was Brian advocating a steady state universe? I thought it was a rhetorical question to point out the arbitrariness of ending a regress with "god." If the answer to a regress is "god," what rules out the simpler answer of the thing itself ending the regress? The latter makes fewer presumptions. That was my interpretation.

Was Brian advocating a steady state universe? I thought it was a rhetorical question to point out the arbitrariness of ending a regress with "god." If the answer to a regress is "god," what rules out the simpler answer of the thing itself ending the regress? The latter makes fewer presumptions. That was my interpretation.

This was also my interpretation. Even if it's not the way Brian was using the question, it's still a problem a "first cause" proponent has to solve.

Was Brian advocating a steady state universe? I thought it was a rhetorical question to point out the arbitrariness of ending a regress with "god." If the answer to a regress is "god," what rules out the simpler answer of the thing itself ending the regress? The latter makes fewer presumptions. That was my interpretation.

Was Brian advocating a steady state universe? I thought it was a rhetorical question to point out the arbitrariness of ending a regress with "god." If the answer to a regress is "god," what rules out the simpler answer of the thing itself ending the regress? The latter makes fewer presumptions. That was my interpretation.